WAR AIMS AND PEACE PROPOSALS
October 12, 1918
Our war aim ought to be unconditional surrender of Germany and of her vassal allies, Austria and Turkey. We ought not to consider any peace proposals from Germany until this war aim has been accomplished by the victorious arms of our allies and ourselves.
It is worthy of note that the Central Powers show a greedy eagerness to accept the so-called “fourteen points ”laid down by President Wilson. I earnestly hope that when the time for discussing peace proposals comes, we shall ourselves repudiate some of these fourteen points, and that we shall insist on having all of them put into plain and straightforward language before we assent to any of them. Let us remember that Congress shares with the President the right to make treaties and that the people are bound to insist that they, the people, are the ultimatearbiters and that their will in the peace treaty is followed by both the President and the Congress.
For example, what does that one of the fourteen points referring to the freedom of the seas mean? If it means what Germany interprets it to mean, then every decent American ought to be against it. The kind of freedom of the seas upon which it is really vital to count is freedom from murder. International law at present condemns exactly the kind of murder which Germany practiced in the case of the Lusitania and in hundreds of other cases, and is still practicing. We ought to make her atone heavily for such conduct and explicitly renounce it before we ever discuss any other kind of freedom of the seas.
Again, we ought to know just what the President means by freedom of commercial intercourse. If he means that he proposes to allow Germany to dump her manufactures on us without restriction, we ought to be against it. We ought to insist on keeping in our hands the complete right to handle our tariff as the vital interests of our own citizens, and especially our own working-men, demand.
Again, what is meant by the league of nations? If it means that Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Russia, as at present constituted, are to have the say-so about America’s future destiny, we ought to be against it. They would treat any agreement with us as a scrap of paper wherever it suited their interests, and we ought to realize this fact. Moreover, we already belong to ade factoleague of nations which is a going concern. Let us stand by our allies beforeentering into a league with our enemies. Therefore, let us at once declare war on Turkey. Any such league is of value only if all its members are willing to make war on the same offenders, and the culpable failure of our Government to make war on Turkey and Bulgaria makes it absurd and hypocritical for us to promise to enter such a league in the future until this failure is confessed and atoned for. And let us at once send Major-General Wood and fifty thousand men to aid the Czecho-Slovaks in Siberia and establish our front well to the west of the Ural Mountains.
Again, the talk of merely giving autonomy to the subject races of Austria amounts to betrayal of the Czecho-Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, the Italians, and the Rumanians. The first should be given their independence and the other three united to the nations with which they really belong. Moreover, it is a betrayal of civilization to leave the Turk in Europe and fail to free the Armenians and the other subject races of Turkey.
Again, let us define what is meant by abolishing secret diplomacy. If it means that the Administration is to renounce the system of secret and furtive diplomacy which it now perseveres in concerning what has happened in Mexico, Haiti, and San Domingo, I heartily agree; but I do not see why it needs an international mandate before it tells our people the truth in these matters. Moreover, before it undertakes a fresh agreement, let it explain why for two years it kept secret from our people the fullknowledge it had of Germany’s conduct and attitude toward us, including all the matters set forth in Ambassador Gerard’s books. The American Nation has never seen such secret diplomacy practiced by its Government as it has seen during the last five years.
It is evident, before these fourteen points are accepted as the basis for peace discussion, they should be stated in such straightforward language that we may understand what they mean. The prime necessities at present are simplicity of language and the squaring of deeds with words. The thing we do not need is adroit and supple rhetoric which can be interpreted to mean anything or nothing.